interesting readings about chess & mind

I got two recent articles. one is a lot more serious, and has some philosophical context, for those who may be interested.

I have to spend some time to evaluate his arguments, but I certainly agree with him about that we do not play chess on a totally counscious level, and actually, we do not act as consciously as we suppose we do.

he also has some nice conclusions about "surely getting better" with analysis of positions rather than reading books and watching videos.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5055


--
the other one is about chess and madness with the example of pillsbury:
http://www.chess.com/article/view/pillsburys-brain

Originally posted by diskamyl
I got two recent articles. one is a lot more serious, and has some philosophical context, for those who may be interested.

I have to spend some time to evaluate his arguments, but I certainly agree with him about that we do not play chess on a totally counscious level, and actually, we do not act as consciously as we suppose we do.

he also has some ...[text shortened]... and madness with the example of pillsbury:
http://www.chess.com/article/view/pillsburys-brain

Yes a re very thought provoking article. Cheers diskamyl.

I too think the that the term 'patterns' is over emphasised.

Mating patterns yes. This is essential knowledge.

When you have a King and Rook v a King you know what position
you are aiming for. The mating pattern WKe6, WRh8 & BKe8 is
etched on all experienced players minds.

Also positions akin to this, you will see at a glance the Smothered Mate pattern.



But patterns in regular positons where there are no tactics?
I have always has my doubts about that one.
Hard thinking is what's required.

It's in these positions where the Rook hanging blunders he mentions occur.
You never see a big blunder when a player has spotted a mating pattern.
In the above diagram once the player has seen Nf7+ he is hardly
going to blunder from there. He is on auto pilot.

Given a balanced middle game position Tal, Petrosian and Botvinnik
could all come up with a different plan/move order.
And all three could possibly be correct.

If all three were white in the above diagram then all three would
deliver the same mate in four.

This is a question of style
(something the author fails to mention which I think makes his case even stronger)

If it were down to patterns then all three would take the same path
in the balanced middle game. The pattern dictating the correct path
(as in the diagram).

He is correct, There is more going on than pattern recognition
covering the whole game.
A mating pattern requires no evaluation of the position after it
has been spotted and played. The game is over.

You cannot start evaluating different patterns in your mind - you
would go bonkers.
Intuition, Evaluation and Calculation. That's Chess.

Chess is a matter of desire.
haven't you all experienced this: Watching the board so long, and not seeing the obvious move... this may be a matter of pattern, but still... what makes someone using the patterns available to him? what if not desire? There are so much patterns I actually can't stand and never use, even if I know there are potentially good.
We are always moving because we very much like it, deep inside.

Originally posted by Macpo
Chess is a matter of desire.
haven't you all experienced this: Watching the board so long, and not seeing the obvious move... this may be a matter of pattern, but still... what makes someone using the patterns available to him? what if not desire? There are so much patterns I actually can't stand and never use, even if I know there are potentially good.
We are always moving because we very much like it, deep inside.

Originally posted by Shamash
Totally agree.
You may also enjoy the wonderful, insightful, evocative, and unequalled THE CHESS MIND by Gerald Abrahams (one of the few English masters able to defeat Sultan Khan).

Originally posted by greenpawn34
[b]The Chess Mind Phew......

I remember reading that one (or trying to). Heavy metal.

Abrahams Brilliance in Chess is I think his best book.
He goes over everything again he uses in TCM only this time in
easier to read terms and with excellent examples. A super book.

Thanks for bringing Abrahams up. Brilliance in Chess is nex ...[text shortened]... uid]21234[/uid] has beaten Kasparov but as yet,
as far as I know, has not put pen to paper.[/b]